Bidding adieu to Pythagoras…
The release of results of every major public examination gives rise to a spontaneous debate on the country’s deteriorating quality of education. This year’s high level drama surrounding the Advance Level Examination through the delay of results and the discrepancies of the Z-score left O/L candidates considering whether they would have to face a similar fate. Happy are many, that the same fate did not befall the innocent 16 year olds. However it was the Minister of Education himself who sparked a new debate when he announced that passing mathematics would not be a compulsory requirement for students hoping to study in the A/L’s Arts stream. This would have been greeted with jubilations and sighs of relief by those of us who are mildly or completely affected by mild forms of Dyscalculia – a specific learning disability in learning or comprehending maths. Unfortunately this is not a plausible excuse since the learning disability affects less than 3-6% of the population. For those of us who slaved through hours of private tuition and purchased every single ‘math-made-easy’ and ‘Math for Dummies’ book, the news comes a tad bit too late. But as some may welcome the new leniency others may deem it unfair or simply disastrous for the entire system of education.
For a country which boasts of a very high quality of primary and secondary education, the leniency in math may be considered as a step back. Yet consider the fact that the Sri Lankan higher education sector is geared towards catering to the demands of the work force and employer demand. Hence could this new framework be a positive step in creating a more job oriented work force? A World Bank report on Sri Lanka’s education system stated that the country ranks poorly in Science and Math education. The report draws a contrast with India, which has a lower adult literacy rate but has been able to provide students with high quality education in these two subjects through well trained staff. One may question whether the leniency conferred by the Minister of Education is in fact a rouse to cover up the deficiencies in the country’s education system. Furthermore, by removing the ‘mandatory cap’ on math, can the country improve the below par rating on the said subject streams? The report further adds that low infrastructure facilities and teaching resources are reflected in the low mastery levels of the second language, mathematics in primary grades and in low GCE pass rates. There are uncountable amount of reports of the shortage of teachers, especially in the rural areas. However remarkably every year the number of students who pass mathematics seem to growing, slowly yet steadily. The percentage of students who passed Mathematics in 2010 was 61.6% in comparison to the 50.1% in 2009. Therefore one wonders whether the leniency has been conferred for genuine reasons or is it a way of covering up another ugly stain on the lack of systematic planning?
Those who follow A/Ls in the Arts stream have the advantage of picking from a variety of subjects; one can either pursue subjects of purely aesthetic nature or a combination of technical subjects. Many of these subjects do not require any or to be fair much of mathematical skills. In a world decorated with individuals who are differently skilled and abled it seems quite unfair to create a standard pass mark and an evaluation system which seems to consider only a few types of learning abilities. Shouldn’t individuals be evaluated according to their personal abilities? Is it possible to have such a system of evaluation or would it lead to further jeopardizing the already messed up education system?
The education system in the country undoubtedly is in need of a revamp. A bizarre fact about university students in Faculties of Humanities and Arts; they are required to follow a course in Mathematics in their first year. What purpose does this course offer for those who are pursuing studies in languages or other aesthetic subjects which do not have even an iota of a component of mathematics?
A popular English daily published a story a few years back about a girl who passed her GCE O/Levels with flying colours; six “A” passes but failed in mathematics. However she was allowed to continue in the A/L classes on the condition she would pass the subject at the next attempt. Unfortunately she couldn’t pass math in the second attempt and had to be dismissed. Her plight is unknown, but is it not unfair to make one subject a deciding factor in an individual’s learning and future? It is true that basic mathematical skills are necessary for day to day living. But on the contrary one may argue how much of what we learn in school is actually retained and put to use in day to day life? Do you use geometry and trigonometry in your day to day activities? As long as one is capable of performing the basic calculations, the purpose of education is met, I firmly believe.
However, the leniency granted will eventually lead to another issue, the lack of higher education opportunities for the students who pursue studies in the Art’s stream. The Humanities and Arts Faculties have the largest student bodies within Universities island wide. For the sake of the future generation let’s hope the Minister realizes that steps must be taken to increase the capacity of these education institutions to ensure more students get an opportunity to follow tertiary level education. Whether or not the private sector should be considered as a partner in this endeavor can be debated, but on a different forum.
It is important we remember that a successful education system should be one that focuses on ‘learning’ than ‘schooling’ and ‘memorizing’ or for that matter ‘parroting’. It should be able to cultivate creativity and lifelong learning opportunities for an individual, which will enable him/her to easily mould him/herself to fit to the demands of a dynamic world of work. If education is a universal right, should it not be created in a way that every individual is able to enjoy this right? It is necessary for the education system to be dynamic and able to accommodate a larger number of participants. I believe the Minister’s statement should be considered as a progressive step in revamping a stall wart system of education which has been in place for far too long.
Good bye Calculus and Pythagoras, oh ‘hi’ Shakespeare!
Written by Umanga Settinayake
Edited by Sunesh Rodrigo
The Other Side
Popular
Weather
Let’s just appreciate the fact that finally something good has happened! The fact that the job market may shrink for those in the Arts stream is not a concern in my opinion, as those who pick the Arts stream should seriously be looking at jobs in the legal field, if not the actually artistic work such as writing, movies, drama, or even teaching. I’m glad that the obsession with Maths is finally coming to an end. Too late for me, but future generations will benefit.
Well it clearly is a way forward to decrease the number of student drop-outs after the G.C.E. O/Ls. But is the minister simply looking at stats?? Now having made that statement the minister, the government and the responsible personals have to ensure that these students who pursue Humanitarian and Art’s streams are provided the correct and updated knowledge to face today’s challenging business world.
True enough the students in the Arts stream have a variety of subjects to choose and further their educational careers, but is the job market in Sri Lanka geared to accept these students? How many students are given the opportunity to enter the Law faculty and pursue a career in the legal field?. These are questions that needs to be answered. Thus it is important that since such a decision has been made that proper infrastructure be developed to cater these students who will pursue in the Art’s stream.
As far as statistical methodologies are concerned mathematical calculations provide a unique and a single figure as final calculation, it is impossible to withstand two or three different figures as the final result.
Calculation of average z scores for subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology could exist as one and only accurate figure, any other figure given as average z-score could be considered inaccurate. There is a well-established universally accepted scientific method for calculation of z-score.
Statistical description of Z-score = x-µ/ σ
by definition
x is raw mark (x is the raw score for z-score calculation)
μ is the mean of the student population.
σ is the standard deviation of the same population.
His Excellency President has informed Department of Examinations to be transparent and release students with Mean values and standard deviations. According to several media discussions held on this subject and inline with the figures released to panels setting future examinations, mean values for new syllabus and old syllabus based examinations are not equal. These differences were found in all subject streams, including Arts, Business studies and Science subjects. All students now request raw marks standard deviations and Mean values of their results. Students have a right to know correct results.
First attempt. (New syllabus) Mean and Standard deviations for 2011 Advanced level examinations for biology subjects.
Physics (Mean)37.1 & 15.17 (Standard Deviation)
Biology 43.7 & 15.2
Chemistry 35.17 & 15.7
Students obtain two A grades and one B grade could obtain following z-scores.
First Example.
Physics-raw marks 75 Z-score for Physics 2.49835201
Chemistry marks 65 Z-score for Chemistry 1.90000000
Biology marks 75 Z-score for Biology 2.05921053
Average Z=score 6.45756254/3 = 2.15252084
Z score result of the student= 2.1525
Second Example.
Physics raw marks 75 Z-score for Physics 2.49835201
Chemistry marks 75 Z-score for Chemistry 2.53694268
Biology marks 65 Z-score for Biology 1.40131579
Average Z=score for three subjects 6.43661048/3 = 2.145536826
Z score result of the student= 2.1455
Third Example
Physics raw marks 65 Z-score for Physics 1.83915623
Chemistry marks 75 Z-score for Chemistry 2.53694268
Biology marks 75 Z-score for Biology 2.05921053
Average Z=score 6.43530944/3 = 2.14510314
Z score result of the student= 2.1451
Scientific community does not recognize, and not aware of any other method for calculation of z-score. However, all students who obtained A and B grade results in the first attempt were given much lower z scores and lower all Island ranks based on wrong z-score results calculated by the department, according to incorrect method given by the UGC. Thereby, large numbers of students were deprived of opportunities for university education. Students actually obtained z score result above 2.0 in the 2011 examinations were given absolutely wrong figures much less than 2.0, figures around 1.5 and 1.96. Thereby those students who represent an Island Ranks between 200 to 600 were erroneously placed far below 1100 in all Island ranks. Displacement by more than 700 ranks from their actual position is a grave situation.
Best way to correct them is to recalculate according to the statement issued by Prof. R P Gunawardane, former secretary to the ministry of higher education. UGC may have to increase the uptake to accommodate more students after correction.
In the mean time figures for the purpose of calculation of other population of students are not equal. Obviously, these results need separate calculation.
Second and third attempts, (Old Syllabus) Mean and standard deviations.
Physics 41.1 & 16.2
Biology 52.8 & 15.3
Chemistry 39.5 & 15.6
Where there are more than twenty options in different subjects in Arts, students opted for difficult subjects which gives low mean values such as English, English literature receive very low z score values despite obtaining A grades. Those students also deprived of university education due to the erroneous method used in calculation of z scores. Second and third attempt students were severely affected in some arts subjects and Business studies (commerce) subjects, and deprived of higher education, entire result sheet is defective. As two syllabuses were not equal two examinations were held, if the syllabi were equal common examination would have been held. There are serious errors in results among the same examination as well, there are difficult papers and lower mean values in different subjects which are not equal. Students sat for difficult subjects receive much lower z-cores and a lower island rank in the same examination compared to their counterparts, in that way students were deprived of university education. Litigation issues can be propped up 5 to 10 years later, due to the fact that, students carry a wrong certificate throughout their life, in each and every future interview. Separate analysis would correct all these discrepancies that would be the biggest service done to the government and towards the younger generation to regain confidence on education system.
Students have lost confidence on the entire examinations system. There is no use in conducting advanced level examination on this manner, z-score result needs a complete review without any delay. Continuation of a wrong methodology in next year and future examinations would be disastrous for the entire nation. Correction is not difficult, this can be done in few days.
can you tell me what is the mean and the standard deviation for maths in last years advance level exam?
u are talking about Z scores
my brother is suffering from this issue…he has 3 A and his Z score 2.05 as mentioned above 2A s with B ever time scores more than this level so can it be happened…
Correct z score for three A s must be well above 2.05 .
@Nimali
Your brother deserve a z score of 2.3 or above, according to the wrong method used by them students with 3 As can also be denied of further education, cut off mark can be set above 2.05. Student who score above 2.3 is given only 2.05. That is the reason why entire result need separate and correct calculations.
if government unable to win this court case, will our A/L exam totally cancel????????????????????????????? or change the z score only?
They won’t cancel it but I believe steps are being taken to rectify the issue
For those who are discussing Z score – How about private Uni? They don’t care two hoots about Z score.
can you tell me what is the mean and the standard deviation for maths in last years advance level exam?plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………….. any one………..
Now the correct results have been released. Ayanthi. You were proven correct. UGC was very inconsiderate. Hope Prof. Sarath Kulathunga committee who messed up, bungled and mismanaged the results would take necessary steps to increase the numbers taken to the Universities to compensate those students who miss out due to their debacle.
UGC has done a massive blunder. are they going to continue. much worse things can happen in 2015 /16 and in the future.
Increasing the overall number of students taken to the universities would provide a great relief to most of the students. All Universities and faculties will have to look into the grievances of students.
Existing rules and regulations need to be adhered to, various suggestions and new ideas may complicate and further delay admissions. Any new proposal need to be informed at least two years before the examinations, then students can select future programs.
http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2012/07/30/suggestion-for-z-score-related-problem-in-university-admission/
New suggestions can be applied to 2016 examinations. At the moment what is pertinent are existing rules. New suggestions cannot be used retrospectively as the students were not informed prior to the examinations.
UGC chairman made the first blunder by giving wrong z scores , now another blunder by giving two separate lists, now only he realize that z score remains the same. Therefore the ranks given as a common list are still valid. There will be multiple Court proceedings and claiming for compensation due to disparities in admission such as 1.81 is selected while 1.97 is denied admission. UGC will be in a very difficult situation. There is an I Q issue here. They should go back to the common list and increase numbers within the legal framework of correct z scores. Single cut off would not give rise to disparities in admission.